Impacts of the Response-to-Intervention Approach on German Elementary
Students
Stefan Voß, Yvonne Blumenthal
University of Rostock, Germany
Abstract
Since the ratification of the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Germany has
been forced to restructure the school system towards
an inclusive education. This is a challenge for
Germany as there is a high rate of students with
special educational needs and a highly selective
school system. In the following report, the Rügen
Inclusion Model (RIM) will be described as an
alternative inclusive schooling concept. RIM is
conceptually based on the US Response-to-
Intervention (RTI) approach. Being the first large-
scale implementation of RTI structures in Germany,
the study will focus on how RTI can be successfully
implemented and if it is viable for successful
prevention of special educational needs and an
appropriate inclusive schooling model. Starting from
a brief introduction to RTI, the RIM concept is
outlined by taking into account individual core
elements. Subsequently, we give an overview of the
results of the comprehensive evaluation study. Within
a control group study (treatment group N = 441,
control group N = 385) the effectiveness of RIM was
compared with traditional schooling structures.
Systemic variables and students-related data were
evaluated at the end of elementary school. All in all,
the RTI approach seems to be a promising
framework model for an inclusive school system in
Germany.
1. Introduction
Independent from the legal determination (United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities), most of the research results promote
inclusive concepts for schools [e.g. 1, 2]. However,
there are ambiguous findings. On the one hand,
results show that if school students with special
educational needs (SEN) are taught in an inclusive
environment, their academic performance is mostly
affected in a positive way. On the other hand, their
social status and self-concept is more often
disadvantageous as opposed to students that are
being taught in separative school systems. Thus, the
socio-emotional development of students with SEN
can be regarded as a problem area in the context of
inclusive education [e.g. 3].
Recent research has indicated that school students
with poor learning outcomes are especially at risk of
social rejection [e.g. 4, 5]. Even though those
findings may cause some concern, they do not
express an attitude against inclusion. Instead they
invite to answer the question how the socio-
emotional situation of students with SEN in inclusive
settings can be improved?
In the discourse about inclusive approaches at
schools, the US-American Response-to-Intervention
approach (RTI) [e.g. 6] is highly discussed in
Germany [e.g. 7, 8], but also critically evaluated [e.g.
9]. First comprehensive implementing experiences
show that RTI is indeed a successful schooling
approach for teaching students with difficulties in
learning, language and behavior in a joint setting
[e.g. 10]. In the following chapters, we introduce the
study that we conducted to examine if an inclusive
schooling approach according to RTI is also
benefiting for the development of students,
especially those with SEN. First, we will give an
overview of the concept of RTI and then describe its
specific implementation in the Rügen Inclusion
Model (RIM).
2. The concept of RTI
The term RTI describes a schooling concept
which aims at preventing and, if needed, integrating
learning and behavior disabilities and provides an
alternative way for identifying learning and
development difficulties [6, 11, 12]. Consequently, it
is of utmost importance to design and structure
school lessons in such ways that it serves and
supports every student in its development. If
students’ response positively to the educational
interventions, they can be seen as successful for their
individual learning progress. Since the remittal of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act in 2004, the RTI approach has gained high
significance in the USA and has been implemented
in half of the states already [13].
In fact, there is no specific RTI approach as such
[13]. Instead, it should be regarded as a conceptual
scaffold in which different core elements are
connected with each other to build multiple
structures. These core elements comprise [12]:
a multi-level prevention system
progress monitoring and the documentation of
development as well as
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2019
Copyright © 2019, Infonomics Society 1347
research-based instruction and evidence-based
intervention.
2.1. Multi-level prevention system
The RTI approach can be illustrated as a multi-
tiered supporting system in which (special)
educational interventions for primary, secondary or
tertiary prevention of educational and developmental
difficulties [14] are realized [12]. Depending on the
extend and severity of the students’ learning and
development problems, the educational work on each
tier differs in a) the intensity and specificity of the
interventions, b) the individual realization of the
interventions and c) the diagnostic methods (see
Figure 1) [15]. Across the different prevention levels,
interventions can be intensified by an increasing
frequency and extension of supporting measures.
These additional measures ae provided for small
learning groups by qualified educators [16]. There is
no specification on how many tiers the system
should comprise, so that the approach sometimes
includes two or four levels [6] but mostly three levels
can be found [16].
Figure 1: Illustration of a RTI model comprising 3
tiers [11, p. 71]
A distinct advantage of RTI is that usual ‘wait-to-
fail’ structures can be avoided. Instead, educational
support is supplied right from the beginning.
Moreover, it provides a suitable alternative to rigid
processes by an individual and flexible support that
meets the individual needs of each student [6, 11].
2.2. Progress monitoring for a data-based
decision making
RTI is based on the formative evaluation of
instruction and interventions with the help of
objective, reliable and valid data of all students [12].
Every school year, two or three universal screenings
are conducted in order to identify students at risk of
developing learning difficulties. Furthermore, the
learning progress is monitored continuously on a
monthly or weekly basis so that the effectiveness of
the applied measures can be assessed [12].
Curriculum-based measurements (CBM) are used for
the progress monitoring [e.g. 17, 18, 19]. In order to
receive differentiated performance profiles, the
students’ academic strengths and weaknesses are
determined so that educational support can be
initiated for identified students at risk. Depending on
a student’s progress, the RTI approach allows a
dynamic exchange between the different prevention
levels. Two different procedures can be applied for
this process: the standard-protocol approach or
problem-solving approach [6].
The standard protocol approach determines fixed
diagnostic criteria (e.g. school performance below a
percentile rank of 26) that help to assign students to
an adequate prevention level where they receive
suitable educational support. Certain interventions
are provided for all students who show similar
learning problems [6]. The problem-solving
approach intends for teachers, principals and, where
required, also parents and further experts (for
instance school psychologists) to meet in
conferences and decide on suitable supporting
measures based on gathered data of the students’
performance and development. Then, each student
receives an individualized education plan which
includes information about specific learning goals
and actions to take into account. Furthermore, they
determine for how long measures have to be applied
and how to verify the accomplishment of set goals
[6]. Recently there have been reports about
combining elements of both approaches [13].
2.3. Research-based instruction and
evidence-based intervention
In the USA the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 promotes the use of effective educational
practices, which are justified by scientifically based
research. According to the tier this means a high-
quality core instruction (tier 1) that meets the needs
of most students. For students at risk (tier 2 or 3)
evidence-based interventions are recommended. An
intervention is evidence-based if “data from
scientific, rigorous research designs have
demonstrated (or empirically validated) the efficacy
of the intervention” [12, p. 6].
This practice provides a foundation for high-quality
education of all students and optimal support for
students with learning disabilities. The U.S.
Department of Education has established the What
Works Clearinghouse to provide teachers and others
with a reliable and proven source of scientific
evidence regarding effective and scientifically
supported educational methods.
Tier 3 – tertiary prevention
intensive individual support for children with significant learning difficulties (about 1-5%)
Tier 2 – secondaryprevention
additional, targeted small group intervention for students with learning difficulties (about 20%)
Tier 1 – primary prevention
high quality instruction for all students in the class
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2019
Copyright © 2019, Infonomics Society 1348
3. Implementation of the core elements in
RIM
Principal challenges for implementing the RTI
approach in Germany are the traditionally highly
selective school structures that do only partly allow a
systematic co-operation between mainstream and
special education. Furthermore, there are only a few
specific procedures for progress monitoring and
teacher training courses available in German-
speaking countries, which do also fulfill the criterion
to be evidence-based or research-based. However,
there are reports in respective literature about
evidence-based components of an effective
prevention and support e.g. for students with reading
and writing difficulties [20]. Based on this analysis
and other findings on effective teaching methods for
students with learning disabilities [21], training
courses were chosen.
If students do not respond adequately to measures
of internal differentiation on tier 1, they may not
accomplish performance standards of their grade. In
this case further and more intense educational
support needs to be provided on tier 2. The class or
subject teacher instructs those students at need
individually in their regular lessons as well as in
additional small learning groups of three to five
students. Thus, they receive their educational support
either parallel to their lessons or additionally to them.
If students still do not respond to these measures on
tier 1 and 2 they may develop severe learning
disabilities and therefore need additional support on
tier 2. This support is provided by a special
education teacher in individual sessions or in small
learning groups of three students maximum.
Whereas five additional lessons per week are
provided on the second prevention level within the
first school year, they are reduced to three additional
lessons per week in the second school year. If
students do not respond to the educational measures
on all three tiers, they receive an individual
differentiated education plan. For particular students
it may even be reasonable to repeat one grade. In this
case it is important that they get specific support to
gain basic competences so that they will be able to
fulfill minimum standards for a successful learning
progress.
In order to systematically monitor whether all
students benefit from instruction, screenings are
conducted every half a year and CBM are conducted
additionally once a month in mathematics, reading
and writing. Students with learning difficulties need
to participate in further weekly CBM and qualitative
diagnostic procedures that investigate suitable
supporting measures.
All involved teachers and educators meet
regularly in co-operative case consultations to decide
on the specific content and implementation of
additional educational support. The RIM combines
the problem-solving with the standard-treatment-
protocol approach in a constructive way. Acquired
data of the students are evaluated based on
interpretation routines. However, if necessary,
individual case decisions are made. Further experts,
such as psychologists, speech therapists and the
principal as well as parents can also participate in the
case consultations so that all possible supporting
resources can be activated.
To strengthen the students' emotional and social
skills, a universal training program to promote the
social skills of the whole class will be implemented.
Furthermore, an effective classroom management
should prevent problematic behavior. Special
proactive measures are the "Good Behavior Game"
[22, 23, 24].
Students who a) nonetheless show conspicuous
behavior or b) do not develop as desired despite
these measures or c) already have pronounced
disorders receive additional selective measures
within tier 2. These are based on manualized
planning and action aids as a proposal for individual
support [25]. The progress monitoring of the
developmental process of the students takes place
mainly through standardized behavioral observations
at the individual or class level and through multi-
informal questionnaires. Non-responders to tier 2 or
students with pronounced disorder also receive
indexed help on tier 3. These consist from specific
interventions as well as programs for networking
between school and extracurricular help (e.g. child
and adolescent psychiatry or social workers).
4. Summarized overview of the
evaluation study
RIM is the first large-scale approach to
implement RTI structures in Germany. Two main
aspects were in the focus of research:
How can core elements of RTI be successfully
implemented, especially in the context of (a)
traditionally established selective schooling
structures, (b) having only a few measures
available for progress monitoring, and (c)
drawing on limited findings on the evidence of
teaching materials?
Is the RIM concept viable for a successful
prevention of special educational needs and for a
suitable inclusive schooling?
4.1. Research questions
The following questions were tried to be
answered based on the acquired data and their
evaluation:
To which extend is a performance progress of
students with individual cognitive preconditions
noticeable in the treatment and control group
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2019
Copyright © 2019, Infonomics Society 1349
and does the framework succeed to develop a
performance-oriented elementary school despite
using an inclusive schooling approach?
Which school setting is more benefiting for the
development of students at risk of poor learning
outcomes?
Which school setting is more benefiting for the
students’ socio-emotional development and
situation?
Which school setting is more benefiting for the
language, school performance and socio-
emotional development particularly of students
with language and speech disabilities?
Do the different elementary school concepts of
the treatment and control group lead to a
different frequency and quality of additional
educational support?
Which effects regarding the emotional-social
situation of the students can be achieved?
To which extend do participating teachers accept
new schooling approaches? Do teachers
implement the core elements of the approach
similarly?
To which extend are parents satisfied with the
educational work according to the RIM?
4.2. Overview of the study design
The effectiveness of RIM was examined in a
control group study from 2010 to 2014. The
following illustration of the comprehensive
evaluation study for RIM needs to be considered as a
summary of fundamental procedures and their results
due to the multitude of necessary partial studies and
results. A detailed description of the applied methods
and findings is given in Voß et al. [26] or
Blumenthal and Voß [27] in German language.
Data about school performance and development
progress were acquired for students who started
going to school in 2010 at public elementary schools
on the Isle of Rügen (treatment group, N = 441). A
control group was chosen with students who were
also enrolled to school in 2010 at public elementary
schools but also at elementary schools with specific
diagnostic intervention classes (DIC) 1or elementary
schools for students with language disorders in the
City of Stralsund (a city situated in the same region,
N = 385).
Different variables from the students (academic
performance, language and socio-emotional
development) as well as from the teachers
(implementation of and attitude towards the RIM
1 Diagnostic intervention classes were created at regular schools
for students with learning and behavioral problems. They offer
special conditions: an extended learning time (curricula for two
years are stretched over a period of three years), a limited number
of students in a classroom (12-15 students) and additional lessons
with special education teachers to optimize students’ individual
achievements.
concept) and the parents (satisfaction with the
schooling concept, socio-economic situation) were
chosen as indicators to assess the effectiveness of
RIM. Furthermore, systemic markers were gathered.
At the end of each school year, students had to
complete established German school performance
tests in reading, writing and mathematics according
to the respective curricular standard in order to
assess their academic performance level. Results of
Germany-wide standard-based tests (VERA) that are
conducted at the end of third grade were also
included. Moreover, standardized student, peer and
teacher questionnaires were used to assess the socio-
emotional situation of the students. They also
involved established international measurements,
such as the SDQ [28] and the socio-metric
questionnaire according to Coie and Dodge [29].
As it is quite important that everyone involved in
this study is open-minded towards comprehensive
school reforms, we examined the attitude of all
educators towards the overall RIM concept as well as
particular conceptual elements and inclusion in
general. Furthermore, we interviewed parents of
students in both groups about their satisfaction with
the educational work at the schools. The teacher and
parent interviews were carried out with self-
developed questionnaires.
Further comparison criteria for both school
systems were the frequency and particular
manifestations of additional or special educational
needs after four years at school.
In order to receive a differentiated view on the
development of students with different learning and
development preconditions, further analyses of
various subgroups were conducted. Those subgroups
were built on the basis of the students’ performance
and development level at the time of their school
entrance (students with disadvantageous, good or
very good learning preconditions in cognitive,
language, literary language and mathematical areas).
With the help of a propensity score matching,
statistical twin groups between the treatment and
control group were determined.
Age-matched and grade-matched comparisons
between statistical twins were conducted with
students who had to repeat a grade during the study
period or who started to visit a DIC after their school
beginning.
4.3. Overview of the results
Below, the results are summarized in order of the
research questions.
To which extend is a performance progress of
students with individual cognitive preconditions
noticeable in the treatment and control group
and does the framework succeed to develop a
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2019
Copyright © 2019, Infonomics Society 1350
performance-oriented elementary school despite
using an inclusive schooling approach?
The study showed that the performance level of the
treatment group in mathematics and reading is
equivalent to the school performance of the control
group as well as to regular performance standards
throughout Germany. The students’ results in writing
are slightly below the overall average for both the
treatment and control group.
Comparing the students‘ school performance
with results from previous annual standard-based
tests (VERA) of third-grade students, it turns out that
there is a tendency towards a performance increase at
elementary schools on Rügen: The performance level
of the treatment group corresponds to the
countrywide average – ‚despite inclusion‘ – which
has not always been the case in previous years.
Comparing the results between the statistical twin
groups shows that the control group tends to perform
better in mathematics and to some extend in writing.
The advantages of the control group are statistically
significant, yet the effect size is low (mathematics:
d = 0.31; writing: d = 0.28). Disadvantageous
performance results of statistical twins in the
treatment group can most likely be attributed to
regional and structural differences (see section
Limits to the comparability of the study groups).
The overall inconspicuous results of the school
performance in the treatment group as well as the
comparatively advantageous performance of the
study group in the VERA standard-based tests in
2013 speak against negative effects of school
performance of students with different learning
preconditions. This leads to the conclusion that there
is no negative impact of the RIM framework on the
school performance of students without additional or
special educational needs.
Which school setting is more benefiting for the
development of students at risk of poor learning
outcomes?
Evaluating the gathered data proves that students
of the treatment group with poor learning outcomes
in the subjects’ mathematics, reading and writing
already achieve the performance level of fourth-
grade control group students after only three years at
school. Under these conditions, they can further
improve their reading and writing skills after another
school year. Similar to international research, it can
be said that additional educational support at
mainstream schools has a positive impact on students
with learning disabilities. The results reported are in
line with other study results, which point to the
positive effects of inclusive education on the
academic performance [30, 31, 32, 33].
Which school setting is more benefiting for the
students’ socio-emotional development and
situation?
Results for the socio-emotional development and
school experiences in both study groups and in
parallel comparisons between both groups show that
the treatment group clearly benefits from the
inclusive school setting. These students show less
inappropriate behavior and more prosocial behavior
patterns. In our study, students at risk of difficulties
in their socio-emotional development do not differ
significantly when evaluating distinctive data about
their socio-emotional status. Students with special
needs in their socio-emotional development receive
at least as sufficient support in the treatment group as
in the control group.
Which school setting is more benefiting for the
language, school performance and socio-
emotional development particularly of students
with language and speech disabilities?
There are no distinctive differences between
students with specific language developmental
difficulties in the treatment and control group in
terms of their language and performance progress.
Regarding their socio-emotional school experiences,
it can be said that students from the control group,
who went to elementary schools for students with
language disabilities, show more joy in learning and
have a better attitude towards school than students in
the treatment group. The students‘ socio-emotional
situation, however, is quite similar in both groups
(overall problems, prosocial behavior, feeling of
being accepted, willingness to increase effort,
classroom atmosphere, self-concept of own
capability at school and social integration). Students
of the control group who have difficulties in their
socio-emotional development but do not receive
additional support are constantly disadvantageous in
their socio-emotional situation.
Do the different elementary school concepts of
the treatment and control group lead to a
different frequency and quality of additional
educational support?
The percentage of students with officially
diagnosed special educational needs is higher in the
control group than in the treatment group. When
considering all of the students with SEN (areas of
learning, socio-emotional development and
language) together, there is a need for special
educational support, which is three times higher in
the control group than in the treatment group (12.3 %
vs. 3.8 %). Whereas the educational system for the
control group leads to an extremely high rate of
special educational support, the RIM concept reduces
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2019
Copyright © 2019, Infonomics Society 1351
the need for special educational support significantly.
Diagnosed learning disabilities, such as reading and
writing or mathematics disabilities, a combination of
disabilities in academic skills or special educational
needs for learning, are in both groups within the
expected area – in the treatment group even
tendentially below this area. Results of a meta-
analysis conducted by Burns, Appleton and
Stehouwer [34] support our observation of a lower
need for (special) educational support within a RTI
framework.
Another point to be considered is that both school
systems do not differ in the frequency of grade
repetitions within the students’ time at elementary
school. With 5-6 % they are both below the expected
results. Information from the European Commission
from 2011 report a frequency of grade repetitions or
other measures to extend the learning time (e.g. long-
term classes) of > 15 % at German elementary
schools.
Which effects regarding the emotional-social
situation of the students can be achieved?
For the investigation of differential effects,
groups of students were built: students without, with
slight and with significant underachievement. The
promotion of the emotional-social situation for
students without and with slight underachievement
has already been adequately achieved in the RIM.
The students achieve average or above average
values based on applicable standards. Findings for
students with significant underachievement are less
favorable. Here are the data on school motivational
aspects (effort readiness, school attitude, learning
pleasure and self-concept) only at T-value
equivalents T ≤ 35. However, it should be noted that
the school-related motivation is also low in the
control group.
Contrary to the assumptions, in the comparison
of the treatment group and the control group positive
effects in the RIM are only shown for some of the
examined factors (problem and prosocial behavior,
feeling of being accepted, class climate, self-concept,
self-perceived social integration). The benefits are
primarily for students with slight underachievement.
The effect is highest in the self-experienced class
climate for students with significant
underachievement (d = 0.69). This suggests that
students with severe academic difficulties still feel
class cohesion in RIM.
To which extend do participating teachers
accept new schooling approaches? Do teachers
implement the core elements of the approach
similarly?
Evaluating the answers from the teacher
questionnaires leads to the conclusion that core
elements of the RTI approach, such as the multi-level
prevention system and data-based decision making
are well accepted and implemented by special
education teachers as well as elementary school
teachers. The teachers’ acceptance and
implementation of the conceptual element to use
research-based procedures and lesson materials in
mathematics, reading and writing are high but
nevertheless lower than for the multi-level
prevention system and data-based decision making.
To which extend are parents satisfied with the
educational work according to the Rügen
Inclusion Model?
We can conclude that parents of students in the
treatment group are mostly satisfied with the school
lessons, lesson materials and the educational support
at school. More than 90% of all interviewed parents
reported that their child feels comfortable and well
accepted, that there is a positive classroom
atmosphere, that their child likes to go to school and
that students are also satisfied with the educational
work. It is striking that clearly more parents of
students in the treatment group state that they know
about the learning situation of their students and how
they are additionally supported.
5. Limits to the comparability of the study
groups
Specific research results lead to the conclusion
that a comparability of the regions is limited.
Therefore, it is possible to underestimate some
effects:
An analysis of the annual standard-based tests
(VERA) for third-grade students between 2009
and 2012 shows that the mathematics
performance level on the Isle of Rügen were
below the German-wide average in three of
those four years. They were also below the
achieved performance standard in Stralsund
(control group). Moreover, the performance
level in writing on Rügen and in Stralsund as
well as in the rest of Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania was also below the overall average in
three of the four analyzed years. Reading results
from Rügen and Stralsund were mostly similar
between 2009 and 2012.
Further differences between the two regions lie
in the parents’ academic and professional level
of education. Approximately one third of the
parents of students in the control group achieved
a high academic and professional degree. These
are twice as many as parents of students in the
treatment group. Parents of the treatment group
students achieved more often a medium
educational and professional degree than parents
from the control group students. A significant
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2019
Copyright © 2019, Infonomics Society 1352
difference of the parents’ educational level is
also supported by the fact that parents of
students in the control group mostly have a
higher income.
With regards to school structural aspects, there
are also differences noticeable between both
regions: schools on the Isle of Rügen teach on
average 136 students (between 35 and 243
students), whereas 198 students on average go to
school in Stralsund (between 97 and 260
students). Schools on Rügen mostly comprise
one to two parallel classes. Schools in Stralsund
mostly comprise two to three parallel classes.
Only one school has one class per grade level.
The structure of lessons and educational support
for the control group corresponds to the
mainstream school system in Mecklenburg-
Western Pomerania. The Isle of Rügen as well
as Stralsund follow the same school laws and
decrees, which has led to a mostly similar
educational supply in both regions. However,
both regions differ distinctively in their extra-
curricular offers for additional educational
support (e.g. therapies for dyscalculia or for
reading and writing disabilities): In the control
group, 16.7 % of the students make use of these
offers whereas in the treatment group only 5.6 %
do.
6. Discussion
If the aspect of school performance is taken as a
primary indicator for judging a school system, both
schooling concepts – the RIM framework and the
traditional system – achieve similar results in the
overall evaluation. Small advantages of the
traditional school system in particular twin group
comparisons can be traced back to school structural
and socio-economic differences in the regions
analyzed rather than the different schooling
approaches themselves. The Rügen Inclusion Model,
however, convinces with a considerably better
learning progress after supporting students with
disadvantageous learning preconditions.
Next to the school performance, the socio-
emotional development of students also plays a
crucial role within a school system, which is why it
should be included into the judgement as well. The
acquired data clearly advocate the preventive and
inclusive RIM. Students of the treatment group show
better prosocial behavior and have more positive
socio-emotional school experiences.
The results also support the RIM concept with
regards to the rate of officially diagnosed special
educational needs. After being taught according to
the RIM, only one third compared to the students of
the control group need special educational support in
learning, their socio-emotional development and
language. The frequency of grade repetitions and of
partial learning disabilities are nearly similar in both
school systems.
When looking at the overall results of specific
areas of special educational needs, it becomes
apparent that especially learning disabilities and also
the socio-emotional development benefit from the
inclusive framework. Both school systems have the
same effectiveness for the students’ speech and
language development.
The RIM and the RTI approach do not only have
a preventive effect, but they also fulfill the request of
a joint school setting for students with (special)
educational needs. Evaluating all results of the study
leads to the conclusion that the RIM and RTI
approach also help to provide available, accessible,
acceptable and adaptable inclusive schooling for
students with SEN and therefore fulfill requests of
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. It is striking that these results have
already been achieved after only four years of a pro-
inclusion-reform. In summary, we can conclude that
RTI can be regarded as an emerging and suitable
alternative for an inclusive school system in
Germany.
7. Implications
Even though the conclusions of the study are all
in all positive, the acquired data also indicate that
there are some elements of the RIM concept that
should be further improved:
First of all, teachers should be more included in
the process of choosing scientifically approved
lesson materials. Guidelines that support this
process have already been developed [35, 36].
Despite the efforts, students with significant
underachievement tend to take on unfavorable
social positions in their classes. The problems of
this unsatisfactory social inclusion could not yet
be solved sufficiently. The findings are
consistent with other research results [3]. Even if
one considers that it is unlikely that any
inclusion-related concept will solve all
emotional-social difficulties, the data point to an
increased need for action. However, the data
shows no evidence of negative effects of the
RIM for students without academic
underachievement. These students achieve
noticeably high scores for the school self-
concept or the sense of being accepted (by the
teacher) (T = 61 or T = 59).
Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that inclusive
schooling structures will develop further on their
own after a single implementation phase.
Instead, the already implemented structures
should be secured and further developed by
quality-ensuring measures (for instance practical
support, further teacher trainings, coaching for
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2019
Copyright © 2019, Infonomics Society 1353
principals for an optimal support of the
implementation).
Finally, when implementing a preventive and
inclusive school system, it is important to
motivate especially the elementary school
teachers for trying out new methods. There has
been a quick and comprehensive reorganization
of established school structures on the Isle of
Rügen. It was possible with the help of intensive
scientific support, but still there were many
elementary school teachers, who could not be
fully convinced by the new reforms. Therefore,
it needs to be considered how fast and in which
time frame such an inclusive school reform may
be successfully implemented under these
circumstances. Reports on experiences in the
USA [37, 38] promote a gradual introduction of
multi-level prevention systems, research-based
practice and formative evaluations of lessons
and long-term supporting measures. Thus, it is
advisable to develop and test implementation
strategies successively.
8. Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture Mecklenburg-
Western Pomerania/ Germany. We thank Laura
Reckzeh for the lectureship of this manuscript.
9. References [1] Bless, G. (2002) Zur Wirksamkeit der Integration.
Forschungsüberblick, praktische Umsetzung einer
integrativen Schulform, Untersuchungen zum
Lernfortschritt, Haupt: Bern.
[2] Kocaj, A, Kuhl, P., Kroth, A. J., Pant, H. A. and Stanat
P. (2014) ‘Wo lernen Kinder mit sonderpädagogischem
Förderbedarf besser? Ein Vergleich schulischer
Kompetenzen zwischen Regel- und Förderschulen in der
Primarstufe‘, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie, 66 (2), pp. 165-191.
[3] DeVries, J. M., Voß, S. and Gebhardt, M. F.
(submitted) ‘Do learners with special education needs
really feel included? The relationship between perception
of inclusion and developmental strengths and difficulties‘.
[4] Huber, C. and Wilbert, J. (2012) ‘Soziale Ausgrenzung
von Schülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf und
niedrigen Schulleistungen im gemeinsamen Unterricht‘,
Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 4, pp. 147–156.
[5] Schwab, S., Gebhardt, M., Krammer, M. and
Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2014) ‘Linking self-rated social
inclusion to social behaviour. An empirical study of
students with and without special education needs in
secondary schools‘, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 30 (1), pp. 1-14.
[6] Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L. and Young, C. L.
(2003) ‘Responsiveness-to Intervention: Definitions,
evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities
construct‘, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18,
pp. 157-171.
[7] Hartmann, E. (2008) ‘Konzeption und Diagnostik von
schriftsprachlichen Lernstörungen im Responsiveness-to-
Intervention-Modell: eine kritische Würdigung‘,
Vierteljahreszeitschrift für Heilpädagogik und ihre
Nachbargebiete, 77, pp. 123-137.
[8] Walter, J. (2008) ‘Adaptiver Unterricht erneut
betrachtet: Über die Notwendigkeit systematischer
formativer Evaluation von Lehr- und Lernprozessen und
die daraus resultierende Diagnostik und Neudefinition von
Lernstörungen nach dem RTI-Paradigma‘, Zeitschrift für
Heilpädagogik, 59, pp. 202-215.
[9] Hinz, A. (2013) ‘Inklusion – von der Unkenntnis zur
Unkenntlichkeit!? - Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem
Jahrzehnt Diskurs über schulische Inklusion in
Deutschland‘, Zeitschrift für Inklusion, 1.
[10] Hughes, C. and Douglas, D. D. (2010) ‘Field studies
of RTI programs, revised‘;
http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/field-studies-rti-
programs (27.02.2018).
[11] Blumenthal, Y., Kuhlmann, K. and Hartke, B. (2014)
‘Diagnostik und Prävention von Lernschwierigkeiten im
Aptitude Treatment Interaction- (ATI) und Response to
Intervention- (RTI-)Ansatz‘ in Lernverlaufsdiagnostik,
Hogrefe: Göttingen, Vol. 12, pp. 61-82.
[12] National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI)
(2010) ‘Essential Components of RTI – A Closer Look at
Response to Intervention‘;
https://usm.maine.edu/sites/default/files/smart/rtiessentialc
omponents_051310.pdf (27.02.2018).
[13] Berkeley, S., Bender, W.N., Peaster, L.G. and
Saunders, L. (2009) ‘Implementation of response to
intervention: A snapshot of progress‘, Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 42 (1), pp. 85-95.
[14] Caplan, G. (1964) Principles of preventive psychiatry,
Basic Books: Oxford.
[15] Fuchs, D. and Fuchs, L.S. (2006) ‘Introduction to
Response To Intervention: What, Why, and How Valid Is
It? ‘ Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), pp. 93–99.
[16] Fuchs, L. S. and Fuchs, D. (2007) ‘Progress
Monitoring in the Context of Responsiveness-to-
Intervention‘;
ttps://www.misd.net/mtss/ProgressMonitoring/
progress_monitoring_manual_2007.pdf (27.02.2018).
[17] Deno, S. L. (1985) ‘Curriculum-based Measurement:
The Emerging Alternative‘, Exceptional Children, 52, pp.
219–232.
[18] Deno, S. L. (2003) ‘Developments in curriculum-
based measurement‘, The Journal of Special Education, 37,
pp. 184–192.
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2019
Copyright © 2019, Infonomics Society 1354
[19] Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L. and Howell, K. W. (2007)
The ABCs of CBM. A practical guide to curriculum-based
measurement, Guilford Press: New York.
[20] Bundesministerium für Bildung (2016)
‘Evidenzbasierte LRS-Förderung‘;
http://www.schulpsychologie.at/fileadmin/upload/lernen_l
eistung/Legasthenie/evidenzbas_LRS.pdf (27.02.2018).
[21] Grünke, M. (2006) ‘Fördermethoden. Zur Effektivität
von Fördermethoden bei Kindern und Jugendlichen mit
Lernstörungen‘, Kindheit und Entwicklung, 15 (4), pp.
239-254.
[22] Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M. and Wolf, M. M. (1969)
‘Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies
for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a
classroom‘, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2 (2),
pp. 119-124.
[23] Hillenbrand, C. and Pütz, K. (2008)
KlasseKinderSpiel. Spielerisch Verhaltensregeln lernen,
Edition Körber-Stiftung: Hamburg.
[24] Lannie, A. L. and McCurdy, B. L. (2007) ‘Preventing
Disruptive Behavior in the Urban Classroom: Effects of
the Good Behavior Game on Student and Teacher
Behavior‘, Education and Treatment of Children, 30 (1),
pp. 85–98.
[25] Hartke, B. and Vrban, R. (2010) Schwierige Schüler:
49 Handlungsmöglichkeiten bei Verhaltensauffälligkeiten,
Persen: Buxtehude.
[26] Voß, S., Blumenthal, Y., Mahlau, K., Marten, K.,
Diehl, K., Sikora, S. and Hartke B. (2016) Der Response-
to-Intervention-Ansatz in der Praxis:
Evaluationsergebnisse zum Rügener Inklusionsmodell,
Waxmann: Münster.
[27] Blumenthal, Y. and Voß, S. (2016) ‘Effekte des
Response to Intervention-Ansatzes auf die emotionale und
soziale Situation von Grundschülern der vierten
Jahrgangsstufe‘, Empirische Pädagogik, 30 (1), pp. 81-97.
[28] Goodman, R. (1997) ‘The Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire: A Research Note‘, Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 38 (5), pp. 581–586.
[29] Coie, J. D. and Dodge, K. A. (1988) ‘Multiple
Sources of Data on Social Behavior and Social Status in
the School: A Cross-Age Comparison‘, Child
Development, 59, pp. 815-829.
[30] Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C. and Walberg, H. T. (1994)
‘The effects of inclusion on learning, Educational
Leadership‘, 52 (4), pp. 33–35.
[31] Ruijs, N. M. and Peetsma, T T. D. (2009) ‘Effects of
inclusion on students with and without special educational
needs reviewed‘, Educational Research Review, 4, pp. 67–
79.
[32] Markussen, E. (2004) ‘Special education: Does it
help? A study of special education in Norwegian upper
secondary schools‘, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 19, pp. 33–48.
[33] Myklebust, J. O. (2006) ‘Class placement and
competence attainment among students with special
educational needs‘, British Journal of Special Education,
33, pp. 76–81.
[34] Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J. and Stehouwer, J. D.
(2005) ‘Meta-analysis of response-to-intervention
research: Examining field-based and research-implemented
models‘, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, pp.
381-394.
[35] Blumenthal, Y. and Mahlau, K. (2015) ‘Effektiv
fördern - Wie wähle ich aus? Ein Plädoyer für die
Evidenzbasierte Praxis in der schulischen
Sonderpädagogik‘, Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 9, pp.
408-421.
[36] Voß, S., Sikora, S. and Hartke, B. (2015) ‘Was heißt
hier Evidenzbasiert?‘, Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 66
(2), pp. 85-101.
[37] Batsche, G. M. (2006) ‘Problem-Solving and
Response to Intervention: Implications for State and
District Policies and Practices‘;
http://www.casecec.org/powerpoints/rti/CASE%20Dr.%20
George%20Batsche%201-25-2006.ppt (27.02.2018).
[38] Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F. Blase, K. A. and Wallace,
F. (2007) ‘Implementation: The Missing Link Between
Research and Practice‘; http://www.rtinetwork.org/
images/content/downloads/get%20started/fixsen.pdf
(27.02.2018).
International Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education (IJTIE), Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2019
Copyright © 2019, Infonomics Society 1355